🚀 go-pugleaf

mathew@mantis.co.uk (en font terrible) writes:
>I'm saying that people are entirely free to restrict stuff from my use or
>not, as they like.

Ok.

>However, if they allow me to use something

Whoa.  They are NOT. They are restricting it from your use.  You agreed
above that they can and should be able to.  They did.

>with some of my own code, *I* would like to be able to make
>the decision about whether *my* code should be restricted or not.  
>They can choose whether *their* code is restricted or not.

FSF is not making any decisions about your code, you are.  FSF
seems to have made only a decision about their code:  They are
restricting theirs from you (because you restrict yours from me)...
*You* are the one who is restricting *your* code.

Now that is how I look at it, which is just about the opposite of 
how you are looking at it.  Actually neither point of view is
of real significance viewed only in that context.  (See below...)

>If I take some of my code and some GNU code
>and build a program, the GPL tells me that *my* code suddenly has to 
>be under the GPL. This is what I object to. If all it said was that 
>the GNU code had to stay under the GPL, that would be fine.

You are objecting to them restricting their code from you!  Your
code does not "suddenly" need to be under GPL.  You do NOT have to
put your code under GPL, and they do NOT have to let you use their
code that is under GPL.  They don't seem to want you using their
code because of your action reference sharing/non-sharing!  They seem
to have a right to that attitude, even if it offends you.  You
said above they could restrict it if they wanted to.  They wanted
to.

>I'm also pointing out that truly free software is more useful to more people
>than GNU software, and that it's misleading to call GNU software "free".

Ok.  *THIS* is the significant subject for debate.  I disagree with
your conclusions.  I admire your goal though, because as I read
it, in spite of all the noise, you are saying that you agree with
FSF goals but disagree with their policy (how to achieve the goals).

mathew@mantis.co.uk (en font terrible) writes in a different article:
>nazgul@alphalpha.com (Kee Hinckley) writes:
>> But if you believe that all software should be free, then by all means stick
>> to the GPL - it's definitely the way to go.
>
>I dispute this.  If you think all software should be free, the best thing

Hmmm...  But haven't you previously stated that you think *some*
software (specifically some that you write) should be restricted?
(Which causes me to doubt your devotion to the cause, and therefore
question your proposed solutions.)

There is a big difference between a philosophy of *ALL* software
and *some* software.  If *everyone* used the GPL (or went PD or
whatever), then all software would be free.  Obviously it is not
realistic to think that is going to happen.  The question is what
policy will be most effective in leading toward that goal.

>to do is to encourage the creation of free software; not to encumber software

I don't agree.  Creation of totally PD, free, whatever, software
by FSF would never cause one person such as you or me, to share
anything that we would not have otherwise.  The GPL may actually
put you and I in a bind someday where we might even share something
that we would not have without the GPL. (It certainly already has
with me, and may have with you.)

>with restrictive copyrights and licenses like the GPL, preventing it from
>being "free" in any conventional sense.

I don't agree with two things here.  What I understand you to be
saying is that you do not think FSF policy is an effective way to
encourage free software.  I think it is working, and working
well, because it happens to fit the particular talents and
resources of those who are implementing it.  It might not be the
best policy for your talents (and I certainly couldn't make an
ounce of difference myself doing it that way), but RMS has
definitely put a mark on the world doing it.  It is effective, for
him.

The second point of disagreement is that you are arguing that FSF
policy should be a match for *your* talents and resources instead
of *theirs*.  If you want to go about it your way, fine.  Do it.
Why all the noise because they have a different way.  Perhaps
comparing the effect that RMS has had with his policy to the
effect that you have had with yours is a way to resolve which is
more effective.  How much effect have you had on the world with
your policy??  And you want FSF to switch from theirs to yours???

Floyd
-- 
   Floyd L. Davidson        floyd@ims.alaska.edu        Salcha, Alaska